Yes... and why are people using those "countless single-purpose archaic unix servers"? Because Microsoft perpetuated this archaic model in the 1980's and 1990's when it decided to follow that model with NT, rather than any of the more modern approaches.
What more modern approaches? The only other "modern" systems I can think of from the beginning of the NT era are Amiga and eventually BeOS. Can you detail a more modern approach to a desktop system? Unix is still a couple decades behind NT in architecture.
Microsoft's lack of vision and innovation in the 1980's and 1990's is responsible for why we still program in C/C++ and use UNIX-like kernels.
Can you name a better language for writing kernels? C is basically the optimal language for writing system code. You haven't presented a revolutionary alternative yet.
It took Sun and the Java community to drive managed languages, garbage collection, and virtual machines into industry and server applications. It took Microsoft a decade to catch on to that one.
Virualization is big because UNIX is too awkward to work as a multi-role server, so you use virtualized myopic UNIX servers to replace what could otherwise be done by Java EE or.NET.
"Comparable" only in the sense that both of them are obsolete junk. But since I have to choose one or the other, I prefer the cheaper, simpler, open source junk.
One system is designed and has a unified vision and architecture, the other is a haphazard collection of incomplete and inconsistent subsystems written largely by amateurs. The difference between them is drastic. If you can't grasp this, then your requirements from your systems must be very superficial.
Anybody whose time is valuable would be a fool to run Windows: any serious computing on Windows is a bottomless time sink. On standard hardware, Linux just works.
I have never owned a system where Linux "just works". Most users purchase computers with licensed and customized operating system images. Replacing these with a hacked together 1970's operating system designed to work over dumb terminals is simply beyond retarded-- Linux on the desktop is a non-starter. Its marketshare reflects this.
Wii Sports is a lot of fun... and a lot of good cops have fallen to its dangerous and seductive powers. What can society do when Wii is in the hands of the very people sent out to protect us from it?
Right- which is why the way this is implemented could represent a critical different in the security situation. Is it webkit or is it webkit within chrome within IE?
It seems an awful lot like an HTML 5 Flash or Silverlight to me.
What will a home user do with an 80 core, 1TB RAM sysetm? Ray tracing?
Sometimes I need a giant mirrored ball as a pick me up when I'm down, or a photo-realistic digital recreation of a bowl of fruit. What's wrong with that?
Protein folding?
They're not going to fold themselves.
Local weather prediction?
I don't trust the NWS, though. I generally try to run my own weather models at home every morning before leaving for work. I have to do something with these petabytes of NASA satellite data.
Yes, it has, and Microsoft is chiefly responsible for that regression. In the 1980's and 1990's, Microsoft had an opportunity to deliver truly modern operating systems and development environments. What did they give us instead? Another bloated C/C++ kernel, GUI libraries written in C/C++, bad imitations of visual programming environments, and (lately) a Java clone.
Wait, what? What would you write a modern system in? Are you some sort of functional programming zealot or something?.NET is a much better approach to what Java was doing than Java, which is why it's gaining marketshare. Besides, Java had gone stale as Sun forgot how to innovate at some point in the last 15 years. Technologies like Java and.NET are the rational solution to having countless single-purpose archaic unix servers virtualized in order to provide inefficient mock-ups of multi-role systems. It's a good thing the enterprise IT market doesn't share your critical lack of vision.
If I have to use 1970's operating system technologies, at least I'm going to stick to the open source technology with the simpler architecture, instead of the overdesigned, overpriced, marketing driven corporate bloatware.
Enjoy your 1970's computing.
If Microsoft actually ever starts delivering 21st century software and software that isn't just a badly executed clone of someone else's ideas, then I'll give them another try.
Given your passionate defense of Linux as somehow comparable to the Microsoft platform, I'm going to assume your time is pretty worthless to you. In this case, what you do with it should be of no concern to anyone.
I'm not a full-time web developer but I used to be contracted by a university for web stuff for a while. From my own experience I can tell you IE's support for CSS 2.1 is so shitty that I had to spend 3x extra time writing eye-burning special hacks that shouldn't have been there in the first place. The "main" CSS file of the site, which strictly adhered to W3C CSS 2.1 standard, works perfectly right out of the box for every fricking browser out there except IE. And I had to maintain a whole bunch of "hacked" (still standard-compliant, just plain ugly) CSS files for different versions of IE because each of them sucks its own way.
I was talking about the current IE version, IE 8. It has the most complete CSS 2.1 support. That's all there is to it. This isn't a blanket claim about IE. It didn't have very good CSS 2.1 support before then.
Yes, what would those narcissistic onanist web developers know about the relevance of the canvas tag to creating... web applications?
I don't see how canvas is relevant right now. It will be when it is finished, perhaps. For now, target Flash if you need that functionality. Right now, it's just another twinkle in the HTML 5 clique's eye.
I haven't gotten snarky yet, but perhaps I will when you explain what "webtrash" means. I certainly hope it's not your term for someone who actually has a working understanding of the issues we've been discussing.
Web trash = Web developers; not really designers, not really software engineers. Trendy, braindead, and useless in any real industry. They're responsible for such brilliant technologies as "ruby on rails" and other poorly designed frameworks that blow away collective millions of dollars of investor cash on energy and hardware in order to save them tiny amounts of time and make their code trendier. They're the sort of people who would complain that their job is too difficult because they have to target a conservative feature set based on the real-world deployment of unstandardized technologies.
That's *awesome*. With IE 8, we can now say that after 8 years of lagging behind, the browser created by the world's richest software company marginally edges out Firefox 3 in a feature-by-feature comparison CSS 2.1 features! Gives you a surge of pride, right? Why, if it constituted the most commonly used version of the product, that'd almost be the same thing as giving the world back all the man-hours spent trying to work around the support that wasn't there until this year!
I didn't say it supports all finished standards. That would be a bold claim. That's a fair criticism. I am simply saying that IE generally doesn't support not-yet-standardized "standards" features. They might change that in the future, though.
OK, I'm having a bit of a chuckle here, but are you alluding that the Linux kernel devs are 'incompetent morons'? Did you also just say that Linux servers are 'shoddy' and 'insecure'?
Yes, it's an easy claim to make. It's frustrating to watch computer science die under the thumb of unix zealots. The industry has become regressive.
I can understand from a technical point of view how a kernel could be much better designed, but your attitude is nothing short of arrogant, misguided and naive. When constructing arguments, stop venting frustration at those you perceive to be incompetent and instead speak politely with plain facts. AKA, grow up.
You sure were bold to stand up to that big bully. What a guy.
I don't work off these lists either, but I'm aware of a numer of high profile parts of it, say, the Canvas element. I'm sure Microsoft is too.
A lot of the features discussed for HTML 5 have had visible implementations for 3-4 years. You could call them bleeding edge in 2006, maybe 2007. 2009? Not without looking pretty silly.
Popular doesn't mean standard. These are separate concepts. If it did, then every browser except for IE could be considered non-standard. Canvas is only popular within the enthusiast web developer clique, or "circle jerk" if you will. It only seems popular because you're part of a very *select* group.
These features will likely be supported when they're finished.
Can you defend this claim? Because based on my experiences *using* CSS over the last 7 years, there hasn't been a time when any version of IE could even claim they weren't maddeningly, brokenly worse.
Wow, since some snarky webtrash said it, it must be true. I tend to use the test suites when referencing this:
The competing products seem to do just fine at keeping a comparable level of stability along with the pushing the envelope. In fact, given how much Opera, Mozilla, and Safari, have been able to do with resources that are orders of magnitude smaller, there's really no excuse.
Every other browser lags in enterprise oriented features such as group policies. IE has a clear marketshare in this case. It's also good at not being a moving target, so it is still favored by enterprises for things like intranets.
This is essentially Google using Webkit as an HTML-5 Working Draft-flavored Adobe Flash. I think this is the same thing Microsoft is doing to other browsers with Silverlight. If it offers developers a stable target and doesn't break the security model, then it should be okay.
In Firefox, this page [w3.org] shows "W3C Working Draft" along the left side.
It's not even complete, though. I think that's an optimistic assessment by them.
A lot of the features that Acid3 tests aren't new proposals in any sense; they've been around for years. WebKit (basis for Chrome and Safari), Gecko (Firefox and SeaMonkey), and Presto (Opera) all score above 90/100, which handily beats IE 8's 20/100.
That's not implying all of them are. IE is only supporting finished standards. There's nothing wrong with that.
It's the worst browser in the bunch for CSS compatibility- with finished, published standards.
Except of course if you're talking about CSS 2.1, where it is the best. CSS 3 is technically not standardized.
IE needs to play catch-up before it can even think about doing anything with HTML 5. They don't need an unstable browser fork; they just need to actually finish their standards implementations in the stable releases. They're getting better at it, definitely, but they've got a long way to go.
Web standards don't translate to the rest of the engineering world, even in software. American developers seem to expect browsers to always be operating on theoretical and only loosely agreed upon behavior... much of the rest of the world doesn't operate like this, though. The whole web standards ideal is really sort of a joke, given the circumstances.
HTML 5 is not done yet by any means. I wouldn't even say they have what you might call a working draft. Microsoft isn't necessarily behind so much as they are not working off the Mozilla and Apple webkit mailing lists when they implement features to their browser.
IE still has a very enterprise-oriented development cycle and not the bleeding edge feature explosion we see in most open source browsers.
I don't think IE needs to catch up so much as Microsoft simply needs to release an unstable browser in addition to their platform browser if they want to compete with the rest of the non-standard "standards" cult.
Last I checked, webkit browsers other than Chrome for Windows have some pretty hefty security holes and dire vulnerabilities. The question is whether google is dropping in a tiny webkit panel or a full chrome instance within this tab. Their implementation here is very important because they may end up simply shattering IE 8's security model and leaving an exploitable hole in users' systems.
Google better take this very seriously before advertising this on their search and mail pages, etc.
And this "modern architecture" buys me... what? Is it easier to develop drivers for Windows? Is Windows more stable? Does it perform better? Does it require less time or money to develop? Is it cheaper to buy? The answer to all of those is, for practical purposes, "no".
That's not true. Driver development is much easier in Windows if only because of the stable frameworks and solid documentation. The kernel indeed performs better within Microsoft's targets, such as the desktop. The most important thing is that it's maintainable and can be redesigned and replaced without toppling an awkward stack of interdependent hacks. This is important consumers because it makes the platform cheaper to develop and cheaper to sell.
Linux is not cheaper than Windows by any means.
One could design and implement a better, less bloated kernel than either Linux or Windows, one that has genuinely useful functionality that doesn't exist in either of them.
That's not the point of a kernel. There are no kernels in production use that are shoddier, more bloated, or more awkwardly "designed" than Linux and there never have been. However, there are also no kernels that have as much stuff in them. The value of a platform is a whole picture, not just a kernel.
The Windows platform is superior from a theoretical or practical engineering perspective- the Linux kernel is simply easier to hack for amateurs and more practical for non-standard third-party deployments-- like Tivo. That's the entire value of the platform. Aside from that, it's just a mess. Windows has a system architecture, it's not just a wild clusterfuck. It's not a technological shanty town. If you can't see the value of this, then you're not looking at things in broad enough terms.
Kernels are supposed to do only a few things: move bits back and forth between devices and users, manage memory, and keep users and processes out of each other's hair. That's not rocket science, and it doesn't require a complicated architecture or complex OOD.
You're right, it's computer science. We have an entire generation of shoddy insecure servers and energy wasting devices now because of a mix of laziness, illogical penny-pinching, and a religious following behind Linux. It's really sad. It isn't complicated to write a superior kernel than Linux- there are tons out there- it takes one experienced and knowledgeable engineer, not thousands of incompetent morons.
When I first posted on this thread, there were a handful of comments, mostly talking about how Microsoft is stealing talent and this is somehow unfair or "just like Microsoft". You freetards have such a childlike understanding of business.
I'm sorry, but calling the Linux kernel less bloated than the Windows kernel makes you sound retarded.
The Windows kernel is tiny and modern. It's practically a microkernel and about a decade or two ahead of linux in architecture. When people complain about Windows, they're not talking about the NT kernel. There is no comparable open source equivalent.
Anyone who has worked on a professional kernel would agree with Linus's assessment. I think it's a sign that he's growing up as a developer.
Do you have any idea how companies operate?...name a big enterprise that doesn't purchase or borrow innovation. Your belief in the innovative enterprise seems rather naive.
Yeah, I hear it's really fun when Steve Jobs wanders into peoples' offices and starts threatening them.
I'm sorry, but I work for money and benefits. I completely disagree about Apple making quality products- they are simply a well polished technology recyclery.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes... and why are people using those "countless single-purpose archaic unix servers"? Because Microsoft perpetuated this archaic model in the 1980's and 1990's when it decided to follow that model with NT, rather than any of the more modern approaches.
What more modern approaches? The only other "modern" systems I can think of from the beginning of the NT era are Amiga and eventually BeOS. Can you detail a more modern approach to a desktop system? Unix is still a couple decades behind NT in architecture.
Microsoft's lack of vision and innovation in the 1980's and 1990's is responsible for why we still program in C/C++ and use UNIX-like kernels.
Can you name a better language for writing kernels? C is basically the optimal language for writing system code. You haven't presented a revolutionary alternative yet.
It took Sun and the Java community to drive managed languages, garbage collection, and virtual machines into industry and server applications. It took Microsoft a decade to catch on to that one.
Virualization is big because UNIX is too awkward to work as a multi-role server, so you use virtualized myopic UNIX servers to replace what could otherwise be done by Java EE or .NET.
"Comparable" only in the sense that both of them are obsolete junk. But since I have to choose one or the other, I prefer the cheaper, simpler, open source junk.
One system is designed and has a unified vision and architecture, the other is a haphazard collection of incomplete and inconsistent subsystems written largely by amateurs. The difference between them is drastic. If you can't grasp this, then your requirements from your systems must be very superficial.
Anybody whose time is valuable would be a fool to run Windows: any serious computing on Windows is a bottomless time sink. On standard hardware, Linux just works.
I have never owned a system where Linux "just works". Most users purchase computers with licensed and customized operating system images. Replacing these with a hacked together 1970's operating system designed to work over dumb terminals is simply beyond retarded-- Linux on the desktop is a non-starter. Its marketshare reflects this.
Wii Sports is a lot of fun... and a lot of good cops have fallen to its dangerous and seductive powers. What can society do when Wii is in the hands of the very people sent out to protect us from it?
Right- which is why the way this is implemented could represent a critical different in the security situation. Is it webkit or is it webkit within chrome within IE?
It seems an awful lot like an HTML 5 Flash or Silverlight to me.
What will a home user do with an 80 core, 1TB RAM sysetm? Ray tracing?
Sometimes I need a giant mirrored ball as a pick me up when I'm down, or a photo-realistic digital recreation of a bowl of fruit. What's wrong with that?
Protein folding?
They're not going to fold themselves.
Local weather prediction?
I don't trust the NWS, though. I generally try to run my own weather models at home every morning before leaving for work. I have to do something with these petabytes of NASA satellite data.
Yes, it has, and Microsoft is chiefly responsible for that regression. In the 1980's and 1990's, Microsoft had an opportunity to deliver truly modern operating systems and development environments. What did they give us instead? Another bloated C/C++ kernel, GUI libraries written in C/C++, bad imitations of visual programming environments, and (lately) a Java clone.
Wait, what? What would you write a modern system in? Are you some sort of functional programming zealot or something? .NET is a much better approach to what Java was doing than Java, which is why it's gaining marketshare. Besides, Java had gone stale as Sun forgot how to innovate at some point in the last 15 years. Technologies like Java and .NET are the rational solution to having countless single-purpose archaic unix servers virtualized in order to provide inefficient mock-ups of multi-role systems. It's a good thing the enterprise IT market doesn't share your critical lack of vision.
If I have to use 1970's operating system technologies, at least I'm going to stick to the open source technology with the simpler architecture, instead of the overdesigned, overpriced, marketing driven corporate bloatware.
Enjoy your 1970's computing.
If Microsoft actually ever starts delivering 21st century software and software that isn't just a badly executed clone of someone else's ideas, then I'll give them another try.
Given your passionate defense of Linux as somehow comparable to the Microsoft platform, I'm going to assume your time is pretty worthless to you. In this case, what you do with it should be of no concern to anyone.
You haven't given a single fact in your diatribe, all you do is state your religiously held beliefs as truth.
If it's also hacked to pass the CSS 2.1 test suite, then that should be just perfect.
All browsers have that-- Safari's is famously large.
I'm not a full-time web developer but I used to be contracted by a university for web stuff for a while. From my own experience I can tell you IE's support for CSS 2.1 is so shitty that I had to spend 3x extra time writing eye-burning special hacks that shouldn't have been there in the first place. The "main" CSS file of the site, which strictly adhered to W3C CSS 2.1 standard, works perfectly right out of the box for every fricking browser out there except IE. And I had to maintain a whole bunch of "hacked" (still standard-compliant, just plain ugly) CSS files for different versions of IE because each of them sucks its own way.
I was talking about the current IE version, IE 8. It has the most complete CSS 2.1 support. That's all there is to it. This isn't a blanket claim about IE. It didn't have very good CSS 2.1 support before then.
Yes, what would those narcissistic onanist web developers know about the relevance of the canvas tag to creating... web applications?
I don't see how canvas is relevant right now. It will be when it is finished, perhaps. For now, target Flash if you need that functionality. Right now, it's just another twinkle in the HTML 5 clique's eye.
I haven't gotten snarky yet, but perhaps I will when you explain what "webtrash" means. I certainly hope it's not your term for someone who actually has a working understanding of the issues we've been discussing.
Web trash = Web developers; not really designers, not really software engineers. Trendy, braindead, and useless in any real industry. They're responsible for such brilliant technologies as "ruby on rails" and other poorly designed frameworks that blow away collective millions of dollars of investor cash on energy and hardware in order to save them tiny amounts of time and make their code trendier. They're the sort of people who would complain that their job is too difficult because they have to target a conservative feature set based on the real-world deployment of unstandardized technologies.
That's *awesome*. With IE 8, we can now say that after 8 years of lagging behind, the browser created by the world's richest software company marginally edges out Firefox 3 in a feature-by-feature comparison CSS 2.1 features! Gives you a surge of pride, right? Why, if it constituted the most commonly used version of the product, that'd almost be the same thing as giving the world back all the man-hours spent trying to work around the support that wasn't there until this year!
Yeah, I was correct. Get over it.
I didn't say it supports all finished standards. That would be a bold claim. That's a fair criticism. I am simply saying that IE generally doesn't support not-yet-standardized "standards" features. They might change that in the future, though.
HTML 5 is kind of a clusterfuck.
OK, I'm having a bit of a chuckle here, but are you alluding that the Linux kernel devs are 'incompetent morons'? Did you also just say that Linux servers are 'shoddy' and 'insecure'?
Yes, it's an easy claim to make. It's frustrating to watch computer science die under the thumb of unix zealots. The industry has become regressive.
I can understand from a technical point of view how a kernel could be much better designed, but your attitude is nothing short of arrogant, misguided and naive. When constructing arguments, stop venting frustration at those you perceive to be incompetent and instead speak politely with plain facts. AKA, grow up.
You sure were bold to stand up to that big bully. What a guy.
I don't work off these lists either, but I'm aware of a numer of high profile parts of it, say, the Canvas element. I'm sure Microsoft is too.
A lot of the features discussed for HTML 5 have had visible implementations for 3-4 years. You could call them bleeding edge in 2006, maybe 2007. 2009? Not without looking pretty silly.
Popular doesn't mean standard. These are separate concepts. If it did, then every browser except for IE could be considered non-standard. Canvas is only popular within the enthusiast web developer clique, or "circle jerk" if you will. It only seems popular because you're part of a very *select* group.
These features will likely be supported when they're finished.
Can you defend this claim? Because based on my experiences *using* CSS over the last 7 years, there hasn't been a time when any version of IE could even claim they weren't maddeningly, brokenly worse.
Wow, since some snarky webtrash said it, it must be true. I tend to use the test suites when referencing this:
http://www.webdevout.net/browser-support-css?uas=IE7-IE8-FX3-OP9
The competing products seem to do just fine at keeping a comparable level of stability along with the pushing the envelope. In fact, given how much Opera, Mozilla, and Safari, have been able to do with resources that are orders of magnitude smaller, there's really no excuse.
Every other browser lags in enterprise oriented features such as group policies. IE has a clear marketshare in this case. It's also good at not being a moving target, so it is still favored by enterprises for things like intranets.
This is essentially Google using Webkit as an HTML-5 Working Draft-flavored Adobe Flash. I think this is the same thing Microsoft is doing to other browsers with Silverlight. If it offers developers a stable target and doesn't break the security model, then it should be okay.
In Firefox, this page [w3.org] shows "W3C Working Draft" along the left side.
It's not even complete, though. I think that's an optimistic assessment by them.
A lot of the features that Acid3 tests aren't new proposals in any sense; they've been around for years. WebKit (basis for Chrome and Safari), Gecko (Firefox and SeaMonkey), and Presto (Opera) all score above 90/100, which handily beats IE 8's 20/100.
That's not implying all of them are. IE is only supporting finished standards. There's nothing wrong with that.
Wouldn't that still leave certain exploits open, though? The rendering engine itself does have some access to the system and memory model, right?
It's the worst browser in the bunch for CSS compatibility- with finished, published standards.
Except of course if you're talking about CSS 2.1, where it is the best. CSS 3 is technically not standardized.
IE needs to play catch-up before it can even think about doing anything with HTML 5. They don't need an unstable browser fork; they just need to actually finish their standards implementations in the stable releases. They're getting better at it, definitely, but they've got a long way to go.
Web standards don't translate to the rest of the engineering world, even in software. American developers seem to expect browsers to always be operating on theoretical and only loosely agreed upon behavior... much of the rest of the world doesn't operate like this, though. The whole web standards ideal is really sort of a joke, given the circumstances.
HTML 5 is not done yet by any means. I wouldn't even say they have what you might call a working draft. Microsoft isn't necessarily behind so much as they are not working off the Mozilla and Apple webkit mailing lists when they implement features to their browser.
IE still has a very enterprise-oriented development cycle and not the bleeding edge feature explosion we see in most open source browsers.
I don't think IE needs to catch up so much as Microsoft simply needs to release an unstable browser in addition to their platform browser if they want to compete with the rest of the non-standard "standards" cult.
Last I checked, webkit browsers other than Chrome for Windows have some pretty hefty security holes and dire vulnerabilities. The question is whether google is dropping in a tiny webkit panel or a full chrome instance within this tab. Their implementation here is very important because they may end up simply shattering IE 8's security model and leaving an exploitable hole in users' systems.
Google better take this very seriously before advertising this on their search and mail pages, etc.
And this "modern architecture" buys me... what? Is it easier to develop drivers for Windows? Is Windows more stable? Does it perform better? Does it require less time or money to develop? Is it cheaper to buy? The answer to all of those is, for practical purposes, "no".
That's not true. Driver development is much easier in Windows if only because of the stable frameworks and solid documentation. The kernel indeed performs better within Microsoft's targets, such as the desktop. The most important thing is that it's maintainable and can be redesigned and replaced without toppling an awkward stack of interdependent hacks. This is important consumers because it makes the platform cheaper to develop and cheaper to sell.
Linux is not cheaper than Windows by any means.
One could design and implement a better, less bloated kernel than either Linux or Windows, one that has genuinely useful functionality that doesn't exist in either of them.
That's not the point of a kernel. There are no kernels in production use that are shoddier, more bloated, or more awkwardly "designed" than Linux and there never have been. However, there are also no kernels that have as much stuff in them. The value of a platform is a whole picture, not just a kernel.
The Windows platform is superior from a theoretical or practical engineering perspective- the Linux kernel is simply easier to hack for amateurs and more practical for non-standard third-party deployments-- like Tivo. That's the entire value of the platform. Aside from that, it's just a mess. Windows has a system architecture, it's not just a wild clusterfuck. It's not a technological shanty town. If you can't see the value of this, then you're not looking at things in broad enough terms.
Kernels are supposed to do only a few things: move bits back and forth between devices and users, manage memory, and keep users and processes out of each other's hair. That's not rocket science, and it doesn't require a complicated architecture or complex OOD.
You're right, it's computer science. We have an entire generation of shoddy insecure servers and energy wasting devices now because of a mix of laziness, illogical penny-pinching, and a religious following behind Linux. It's really sad. It isn't complicated to write a superior kernel than Linux- there are tons out there- it takes one experienced and knowledgeable engineer, not thousands of incompetent morons.
When I first posted on this thread, there were a handful of comments, mostly talking about how Microsoft is stealing talent and this is somehow unfair or "just like Microsoft". You freetards have such a childlike understanding of business.
I'm sorry, but calling the Linux kernel less bloated than the Windows kernel makes you sound retarded.
The Windows kernel is tiny and modern. It's practically a microkernel and about a decade or two ahead of linux in architecture. When people complain about Windows, they're not talking about the NT kernel. There is no comparable open source equivalent.
Anyone who has worked on a professional kernel would agree with Linus's assessment. I think it's a sign that he's growing up as a developer.
They're hiring managers, not techs. Selling Windows doesn't take a lifetime of experience.
Do you have any idea how companies operate? ...name a big enterprise that doesn't purchase or borrow innovation. Your belief in the innovative enterprise seems rather naive.
I was talking about the comments, not the article.
Yeah, I hear it's really fun when Steve Jobs wanders into peoples' offices and starts threatening them.
I'm sorry, but I work for money and benefits. I completely disagree about Apple making quality products- they are simply a well polished technology recyclery.